Talk:Airbus A320neo family/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Specifications?

Where do those figures come from? The Airbus website cited gives no firm information. Airliners.net is actually a PHOTO website. I especially doubt the seating figures that give a 15% increase in seating capacity over the A320. Geometry hasn't changed so I doubt there will be space for FIVE more rows of seats. Nomad (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yea i was workin on that, someone changed the numbers without a source, never got back on that one. The stats wich are on now are from the Airbus website, like the source tells. Njirk (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

That was the first source I checked. Airbus website has very limited information about neo. Definitely not specs. Nomad (talk) 07:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

NO_x emissions

I seriously doubt Airbus will reduce NO_x emissions by 50% compared to the A320 series. The prooflink is dead and I suspect this was a typo. Nomad (talk) 11:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Done

...some things. Tagremover (talk) 17:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Youtube: see A320: NOT used as reference proving something, but as related note. Youtube links are ok if they do not prove anything, just giving details.

Try to get some A320NEO experience first BEFORE REVERTING MAJOR EDITS! Read for example the WHOLE A320 article. This will help understand my edits. Nikthestunned: STOP EDIT WAR. You replaced my new version with your old edited version. Tagremover (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I absolutely, definitely, do not need to know ANYTHING about the A320neo to tell when some refs need fixing as they have no template and no reference information. As such, no, I won't be reading all of this technical information. I have, however, now fixed up the references and removed youtube links without losing your changes. Re: your comment on Youtube: Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Cheers, Nikthestunned 18:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Just TRY to know something about the aircraft articles: READ AND LEARN ! Tagremover (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I really hope someone else comes along and fixes these up, as I don't care enough any more. Insert all the random links you like! Also, learn a little more about how Wikipedia works - I do not need to know anything about this subject to know a bunch of your edits are against the manual-of-style. Enjoy. Nikthestunned 09:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

A321 NEO LR

It's official. Someone edit this page, and add more information. http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2015-01-13/airbus-launches-long-range-a321neo --Trulystand700 (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add the Engine specfitations to the page since I have tried to ad them and they get remoce--User:KentwoodStudent — Preceding undated comment added 02:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Recentism

This article is the bright example of throwing "latest news" in the encyclopedia. There is no need at this stage to have a separate article. There is absolutely nothing to say about A320neo that wasn't said in the A320 article. I seriously doubt A320neo is a separate airplane. It should be viewed merely as a modification of A320. Nomad (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• The page specifies the A320neo wider as the main page does. Why do you think 737max has its own page? if readers want to know exactly what the A320neo is, this page tells them what it is way better as the main page. On this page its Only the A320neo, not the history of the A320.Njirk (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It doesn't specify neo wider. And it's a VERY good question - why 737 MAX has its own page if the plane won't fly till 2017? At least (unlike this page) 737 MAX page gives SOME information - new fan diameter, some information about the interior. What exactly is different on this page from what was said on the main page? Actually, I'll put it differently - what here couldn't be said on the A320 page? So far, neo is just a future project with as much as no information about it. I doubt even the Airbus engineers know much more at this stage. Why have a separate page instead of just another paragraph in the neo section on the main page? Nomad (talk) 07:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

But if you decided to create and maintain it, could you add the Airbus aircraft template at the bottom. Nomad (talk) 07:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

sry, i have no idea how to add the airbus aircraft template at the bottom, dont even have an idea what that is :P Njirk (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Njirk here, if ppl want to find out information about the A320neo, they would probably like to know more than just a paragraph on the A320 article. Also, with a separate article we can list orders here, which there are a lot of. —Compdude¹²³ 16:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You may be right in that orders need a separate section. But I still can't agree with the idea of a separate article about something SO far in future. If people want to find out information about A320neo, they'll need to... wait. Because there is absolutely nothing that they can read about it - Airbus hasn't revealed any public information except for some conceptual PR-stuff. And the way this article is written actually proves my point - the tech spec figures cite a SPOTTERS website as a source of information, most numbers are unrealistic... This means that nobody really knows anything about this new plane.

I insist that this article violates WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Nomad (talk) 04:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think you should bring this up on the WikiProject Aircraft talk page to get the views of more editors on this issue. —Compdude¹²³ 05:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Nah, by the time they come to any conclusion we'll have more information about this aircraft family and the existence of this article will be justified. :-)) Actually, I understand the authors quite well - I myself wrote the Russian article about Boeing 737 MAX, so... mea culpa. :-D

I've added the categories and updated the Airbus aircraft template. If this article exists, it should at least be presentable.

Actually, do you guys realize what you got yourself into? For the next three years your job will be to try and maintain the difference between A320 and A320neo articles. Welcome to HELL! *evil laughter* And good luck! Nomad (talk) 11:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomad, they seem to be doing rather well without you. Perhaps you weren't as indispensable as you assumed. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Removal of relevant text and edits.

Someone keeps removing an edit I added about the fact that the A320neo is not a new aircraft. It is a re-engine program. Plenty of information regarding this can be found online. To imply that Airbus is building new A320s called the "A320neo" is a lie. They're rebuilding existing aircraft with new engines, updated interiors and exterior modifications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trymeonce (talk • contribs) 15:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Sources? Stop edit-war. 95.119.52.79 (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Trymeonce:, could you provide specific sources that back up your claim? As what you say seems unlikely. --McSly (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@McSly: Thanks for helping. 95.119.52.79 (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Although it's deemed "New Engine Option" it's nothing applicable to the basic/older A320. Although the airframe does not seem to be new, there are multiple internal changes + modifications to wings.--Denniss (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Concur. The neo is a new-build aircraft, but not a completely new "design" (Another meaning of "new aircraft"). While the neo is called a reengining program, it's the basic design that is being reengined, not old airframes that have already been produced and were in service. - BilCat (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing that indicates the airplane is a new-build aircraft. The New Engine Option was just introduced in 2010. The neo is "in production" now. That would be a new record for getting a new aircraft from introduction to production. It's a re-engine program being touted as a "new aircraft". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trymeonce (talk • contribs) 17:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Trymeonce: Clearly wrong. 95.119.52.79 (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Provide proof. You don't re-engine a new build aircraft. You re-engine existing aircraft and then go through the certification process to allow the old plane to fly with the new engine type.

As per our article, the NEO program is basically some redesigns to the older A320 which include the addition of new engines. In other words, the new engines are part of the redesign of the aircraft (to make it more efficient etc). This is also what your source appears to say. Please provide a source saying that says they are replacing the engines on existing aircraft, as the source you've provided doesn't say that, and I suspect it's not even possible to make most of the changes to existing aircraft. (I'm not sure whether the new engines can be added to existing aircraft. It wouldn't surprise me if even if they can, no one bothers to go through the certification process because it's simply not worth it as too few people would bother to upgrade the engines.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Aircraft can be and are equipped with new engines and recertified. Provide a source that too few people would bother to upgrade engines. It happens frequently in aviation. You don't sound like someone qualified to edit an aviation article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trymeonce (talk • contribs) 18:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Well I don't have to provide a source for anything as I'm not the one making claims in our article. Regardless of whether people may eventually use the new engines developed for neo in older airframes, that isn't what neo itself is about, as your source itself says. And I think this means I'm more qualified to edit aviation articles, as I can actually read an understand a source. (I also don't feel the need to vandalise articles by adding text calling editors facist pigs.) BTW, I never said new engines can't be added to aircraft. I just said I'm not sure if these new engines can be added to the older airframes (as they may be designed for the newer airframes and so may not work well on older ones). I did also suggest I wasn't sure if there would be enough demand for replacement engines on existing aircraft to warrant the cost of recertification, bearing in mind again, it's uncertain how much efficiency gain there would be on existing airframes presuming these engines even work. Again I have no idea if this is true, and don't really care if it isn't. I have no plans to add it to any of our articles. Ultimately the main point is that the source you keep using doesn't actually say what you claim it says. Instead it says the same thing as our article says, or as I said above. The neo program isn't about adding new engines to existing airframes but new airframes which have been made with some modifications (which seems to be what the MAX programme is about too). Nil Einne (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Trymeonce, I don't know if you're still around but I did do a bit of research and perhaps I was too pessimistic about the chances of retrofitting the new engines (or other features) on to the old airframes. However I did come across [1] which mentions one of the modifications is strengthening the wing and fuselage to handle the heavier engines. Of course it's possible strengthing could be done to existing airframes so this doesn't rule out adding them to older airframes but it will add to the cost and complexity (and therefore time taken for payback). I did notice our articles, as well as other sources like mention that various features added to the neo, including the sharklets can be retrofitted [2] [3] [4] [5]. (Also I believe some of these features have existed for a while so some airframes would have come with them.) But I don't think the totality of features besides the engines have been in production airframes before now (the strengthening for example). It imagine it's also possible engine makers could design a new engine which would work on older airframes without needing much modification. Either way, I'm pretty sure Airbus will need to be involved (updating the software etc to handle the new engines for example, as well I presume in the certification process). Considering they neo has just been certified, and isn't entering service until probably later this year, it's hardly surprising there are no immediate retrofit plans for the new engines on older airframes. In any case, while some of my claims above may have been a little wrong, as I said before it's largely beside the point. I wasn't suggesting to add any of this to the article, simplt trying to explain stuff to you. The fact remains the source you were using doesn't support the claim you were making, in fact all the sources I've seen supports what our article says. (Note also if you think this is some sort of Airbus vs Boeing issue, as I already mentioned Boeing is doing the same thing with the MAX. They aren't doing what you were claiming.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Please note that Trymeonce has been blocked for 36 hours for edit warring. MilborneOne (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

This is one of the most moronic discussions I have come about on a Wikipedia talk page. The question of the neo being a new frame or an old re engined frame is nearly philosophical mired in the advertisement speak of the sources. If we go by the naming of the frames than A319-1xx, A320-2xx and A321-2xx were xx denotes the engine version should indicate it being the same frames with different engines. As I have not seen a CFM bird re engined to IAE, just not done, I do not see the re engine of old already delivered frames as an litmus test.Jochum (talk) 05:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Specifications - engines

In specifications engines mentioned for the A321 are PW1133G and PW1135G. In engines than there are the A321-271N with a PW1133G-JM and A321-272N with a PW1130G-JM. I know that the PW1135G and PW1133G should exist, but where does the PW1130G come from? "The System Configuration Guide - Airbus A320neo Family" does not seem to bring a result on search of the Airbus home page. Neither does "The System Configuration Guide", nor Airbus "A320neo Family". Does a reference not need to be a published document? On the product card from PW regarding the PW1100G-JM there is no mentioning of a PW1130GJochum (talk) 06:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The EASA TCDS shows the PW1130G as part of the PW1100G family, nothing indicates it is different from the PW1133 escept for the part number of the data storage unit. No mention of a 1135G in the TCDS. MilborneOne (talk) 13:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The FAA TCDS is a bit more of a help:

• PW1133G-JM Basic Model, Airbus A321-271n
• PW1133GA-JM Alternate Climb Thrust Model, Airbus A321-271n
• PW1130G-JM Reduced Thrust Model, Airbus A321-272n
• PW1127G-JM Basic Model, Airbus A320-271n
• PW1127GA-JM Alternate Climb Thrust Model, Airbus A320-271n
• PW1124G1-JM Alternate Climb Thrust Model, Airbus A320-272n
• PW1127G1-JM Hot and High Thrust Model, Airbus A319-173n
• PW1124G-JM Basic Model, Airbus A319-171n
• PW1122G-JM Reduced Thrust Model, Airbus A319-172n

MilborneOne (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Floating vs standalone small table

@Alainmoscoso : Hi, why do you prefer standalone your small table: do you love empty space or think your table is so important? 79.196.231.2 (talk) 03:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Number of A320neos

Hi, how can there be 3 A320neo aircraft in service when only one is built (as of 29 Feb)? Can someone resolve this? Guysayshi ☺✌ (talk) 03:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Guysayshi

Some fanboys of their local airline use Wikipedia as Newspaper to spread news of their airline getting their new bird. --Denniss (talk) 09:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The number built is only updated by Airbus monthly which as long as we provide a date it is OK for our use. MilborneOne (talk) 10:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

A321neo LR

Could you separate the A321neo orders in "normal" and "LR" version? Thanx 138.36.34.54 (talk) 21:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Probably not, since airbus' OD data doesn't distinguish those. The LR is merely a weight variant : a paper version, no real differences from the others. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Airbus A320neo family. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160625100706/https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/EASA%20E%20110%20TCDS%20Issue%202%20LEAP-1A_1C_20161103_1.0_0.pdf to https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/EASA%20E%20110%20TCDS%20Issue%202%20LEAP-1A_1C_20161103_1.0_0.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 10:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

SAS' first A320neo has entered service

Three times I've tried to add Scandinavian Airlines to the list of operators as their first A320neo entered service today, and three times it has been removed. I can understand the first time as I didn't provide a source, but the second time I provided a link to a Danish news site, and it was removed. The third time to an official press release from SAS, and it was also removed. Is a press release from the airline that clearly states when the aircraft begins commercial service not a good enough source? Unfortuneatly the press release is only available in Swedish, Norwegian and Danish, but if you don't speak Scandinavian, run it through google translate. 81.229.44.57 (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Google translate shows the statement in the ref you provided "Today is the first commercial flights between Stockholm and Copenhagen. " also not a reliable source but https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/ln-rgl shows that LN-RGL has flown three trips CPH-ARH today SK402/SK403, SK406/407 and SK410/411. The source doesnt have to be English so your SAS press release should be OK. MilborneOne (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! It was getting very frustrating when my edits kept being undone despite being sourced. 81.229.44.57 (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Large deletions/changes

Don't like the new:

• intro
• Development and Design
• A320 improvements
• Development
• Variants

sections. Nearly any of it. Please collect statements, probably a vote after discussion. 217.250.187.159 (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments: Sorry Marc, a lot work, but a lot wrong or pointing in the wrong direction / onesided. Many, many problems with your edits. The MANY other Wikipedia editors were better. Please discuss large changes.

Please respect all the editors which contributed their work! It is respectful to ask BEFORE making very large deletions / changes. 217.250.187.159 (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

We can open a discussion or even a task on the aviation portal. No edit war please: discuss these very large deletions. 217.250.187.159 (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Sorry if it confuses you. It was done over a week with a detailed changelog in the article history. I kept the same details and the same refs, sometimes removing redundancies. The intro is shorter to better comply with WP:LEAD and its details are moved to relevant sections, not lost. if you see room for improvement, you're welcome to improve the article with good references. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks, but i am not confused, and i think your edits are. You have to read a lot before deleting such large parts.

Your comments are not sufficient.

The intro is not too long and has to provide an INTRO. This means not to give a onesided view, but a summary. 217.250.187.159 (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

MANY editors have contributed, you deleted very large article parts. Discuss before starting edit war.217.250.187.159 (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The comments for each little edit are more useful than a whole revert with undetailed reasons. If you want to enrich the lead, go with it. If some of your edits were removed, I'm sorry, but it was because it was superseded, in any case a reason was given and nothing can't be undone - but be specific. But it's not the best to argue you have a legion behind you, especially when you didn't bother to register an account and just broke the WP:3RR.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I already provided an for years accepted intro. 3RR is something mostly useful, but sometimes just used by some for personal reasons. 217.250.189.7 (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Again: i already said sorry, because i see a lot writing, but as i am:

a pilot

an engineer partly in aviation

means that i know a lot more than you have shown, writing isn't all, but knowledge, very sorry.

But we can start discussing changes on the article as he was published for years and edited by many. Thanks. 217.250.189.7 (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Your claimed curriculum doesn't change anything, mine neither either. When editing wikipedia, the references are paramount. If you want to discuss each change individually, you can. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

But your knowledge is poor. You want to make very large deletions on an text partly online for years. 217.250.189.7 (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Large deletions/changes Background

Now, thats getting far too .... for my taste. There is a risk that i am loosing an article to the common taste / limited knowledge. Thats imho not what i see Wikipedia stands for. Except for the (few) paid editors also in the aviation sector many are providing a gift of knowledge and our limited lifetime to the world. And there is a risk of loosing another promising editor by rejecting his edits: you, Marc. I dont want that. This is partly a gift to you, Marc. I am one of the earliest editors of the (german) Wikipedia. As you are getting older, activities slow down, and thats the reason elder people enjoy others doing the stuff, and have to live with the good and bad.

I'm one of the eldest either in the french WP and the english WP, but what does count is the quality of edits, not bragging about personal experience. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I have followed for example Bilcat´s edits for many years: he is doing a lot of good work reverting the garbage, sometimes probably more content discussion needed, and in a few cases wrong. Of course i noticed your efforts for a long time, Marc, and thank you for investing your lifetime. Sorry (i used this word often, and i mean it), although your texts are mostly acceptable, your knowledge is limited.

Of course my knowledge is limited, wikipedia shouldn't be written by experts without any accountability but by gathering relevant info, and holding it to scrutinity. (and you should not make assumptions over others knowledge, you could be disappointed)--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

If all content / statements / facts of Wikipedia can be quickly googled, Wikipedia isnt needed.

if wikipedia isn't WP:verifable, WP is useless.

And: Facts are only in the past, and so, although being an actual encyclopedia, Wikipedia articles content is history. So: for example one detail you should know: The A320neo has been discussed by Airbus for a long time, from 2004 to 2006. This was done following the decision of Boeing "doing" the Y1, which was partly triggered by the new geared turbofan developed by Pratt&Whitney since mid 90s.

Indeed, you can observe that in the article : Leahy's comment in Flight, 20 June 2006, and in the Pratt & Whitney PW1000G article where first GTF tests are in 1998.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The question was: Should Airbus develop a new plane for the new engines coming or is it sufficient / more efficient to upgrade the old. The decision was to upgrade and start the A320 Enhanced program including more than only new engines.

The Enhanced improvements programme is independent, Airbus doesn't refer to it when detailing the neo, unless you have an other source which would be welcome. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

It is important to understand that development cycles are VERY long in aviation, for example a new info: Sustainable engines: MTU makes PW1000G family efficiently They are developing this (small changes?) since minimum 2008. Although one can do a lot of good work to Wikipedia with mostly basic knowledge, to provide highly valuable content to the world it is necessary to dig deep in history and - in this article - into technology. Additionally: this info and many others are ones that i do not present in Wikipedia (i cant do anything), although there is in the related article room for one or two sentences about this. Its mentioned because especially in the intro every word is carefully selected and has a lot more background.

The PW1000G article is pretty complete but you can always add to it if there is some material not present there. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

To understand more about engines, use for example [6] (Bjorn has a whole series about engines), and as a basic knowledge Thermodynamic cycle and all engine related links in this article (not your variant). For planes related are Fuel economy in aircraft, Lift-to-drag ratio and the other links of the article. I do like your efforts, and i even more gladly welcome you as an editor with deeper knowledge.

Yep, I'm a contributor. What's your point?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

As i am just a simple editor, you and of course Bilcat can remove the large efforts provided by many editors including many hours of my time only on this article. Its your decision, your knowledge, your power and your taste. 217.250.189.7 (talk) 07:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

No, wikipedia doesn't work this way. It's not "small guy" vs "powerful guys". It's truth vs not truth. I got in arguments, but at the end the truth wins, not the people. You are welcome to fight edits with reasoning, but not with disruption. You seem you want to be knowledgeable. Prove it by detailing your comments on each edit, not by reverting a whole.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Operators, delivered vs first service

In the list of operators, shouldn't first service be of more interest in the list than when the first aircraft was delivered? I have tried to change SAS to first service 2016-10-26, and have provided a reference that supports it (use Google translate if you don't speak Scandinavian). But someone keeps changing it to "delivered 2016-10-26" and adding a link to a press release that doesn't support the claim. 217.209.100.110 (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I searched for an English ref, and found quickly the Airbus PR, and didn't expect a revenue service on the same day as it's common to wait a few days, but the translated SAS PR supports that. I found the PR in English. For your next additions, note that references in English facilitates WP:Verifiability - refs in other languages are OK, but relying on machine translations isn't the best so if you have the same in English it's preferred. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I am well aware that English references are preferred on English wikipedia, but I haven't been able to find one. SAS only issued the press release in Swedish, Norwegian and Danish. Maybe they thought it wasn't noteworthy enough to issue a press release in English? For you next additions, how about reading the original reference before changing it to something else? Note also that the press release from Airbus only stated that SAS has taken delivery of their first A320neo, it did not state when the aircraft was delivered (it was actually delivered on the 21st). 217.209.100.110 (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Cabin flex

Relevant for the A321neo and A321LR, I added a sourced section this evening describing it, detailing how the increase in capacity is possible. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 03:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Airbus A320neo family. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=mro&id=news%2Fawx%2F2011%2F01%2F11%2Fawx_01_11_2011_p0-281684.xml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923202053/http://www.cfmaeroengines.com/files/brochures/LEAP-Brochure-2013.pdf to http://www.cfmaeroengines.com/files/brochures/LEAP-Brochure-2013.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 14:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

News: Engine failures and flight cancellations

After a recent mid-air engine failure in India, Indian aviation authority has grounded 11 A320new aircrafts with a specific engine make, resulting in several flight cancellations. This has to be added to the page:

References:

https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/planes-grounded-65-flights-axed-215586

http://www.livemint.com/Companies/6HpvhDujT4kswp2SKRP8FN/IndiGo-cancels-47-flights-after-DGCA-grounds-planes-with-fau.html

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/flyers-screamed-as-a320neo-flight-with-faulty-engine-shook-violently/articleshow/63292124.cms

Composerananth (talk) 08:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Known problem with a certain P&W engine manufacturing series, see Pratt & Whitney PW1000G --Denniss (talk) 09:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Delivery delays subsection

...needs a lot of trimming/detail deletion? A lot of it is, frankly, trivia. IMO. Boscaswell talk 06:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

The fact that engine issues caused delivery delays is notable – Airbus had to park engineless neos in 2017–2018[7][8], which isn't even mentioned in this section – but yes, most of the rest is trivia IMO. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

First A319 Neo has been delivered on 23-Aug-2019 to K5 Aviation

Delivered: 23 Aug. 2019 (Call Sign DANEO, Hex:3C78AF) XFW-MUC dep: 15:07 23 Aug. 2019 K5 Aviation KAY D-ANEO cs: special 3C78AF active https://xfw-spotter.blogspot.com/2019/01/a319-153n-arctic-tern-aviation-d-avwg.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.62.4.101 (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)